[paraclete]

Various countries behave differently.

What I place before you is a non american issue and yet I think you might have many parallels.

For the past few weeks there have been people who have been variously described as refugees, asylum seekers, economic migrants, even terrorists occupying boats in Indonesia and refusing to leave these boats unless they are allowed to proceed to their destination, Australia.

78 of these persons were rescued in Indonesian waters and yet they refuse to leave their rescue vessel. Such people obviously have no respect for the laws of any country or international law.

How would you remove them from the vessels and would you deport them immediately to their homeland. In an effort to be humane Australia has been feeding these people and has even arranged accommodation for them. I know what my preferences would be but have you advice to offer

[ETWolverine]

How do you get them off the boats?

That's easy. Sink them. I guarantee you there will be nobody left on the boat when you're done.

Is it nice? No. Is it PC? Nope. Is it the way we would like to handle the situation? Not really.

But the fact is that some people take good intentions and efforts at being compassionate as a sign of weakness. They believe that they can steamroll over the persons with good intentions if they are stubborn enough. The solution is to draw a line past which you will not allow such people to cross... AND ENFORCE THAT LINE.

In this case, if the "refugees" are asking for your help and assistance and good graces but are refusing to abide by your rules and regulations, then it is time to stop extending your good graces.

Now... it is possible, in fact it is highly likely, that these refugees are indeed legitimate refugees, and that they have reasons to run from their homelands. If so, it is incumbent on them to abide by YOUR rules for how they get to your country and prove their refugee status, not make unreasonable demands and hold their breaths like little children until they get what they want. "I'm not getting off the boat till you take me where I want to go," just doesn't wash with me.

The solution: sink the boat. Then they'll get off. Or drown. Either way, you don't have to worry abut how to get them off the boat thereafter.

What to do about them in terms of national policy? That's a much harder question, and one that each country has to decide for itself.

Elliot

[paraclete]

How do you get them off the boats?

That's easy. Sink them. I guarantee you there will be nobody left on the boat when you're done.

Not very practical Elliot since one of the ships belongs to us anyway, It was a rescue vessel. This jackboots and all solution of yours would no doubt extend to throwing people off the ship into the sea. What should we do with the people Elliot? I would have thought a person with your background would have been a little more sympathetic to the plight of displaced persons but you are just pathetic.

If I hear you right your solution to illegal immigrants arriving by boat is to sink their boats with them on it. How far from shore should these boats be before we sink them? Should we rescue the people after we have sunk their boats. For your information we do sink their boats after they have been taken off them but as these two situations are occurring in Indonesia, a place where we should avoid committing an act of war or piracy if only to maintain good international relations. I expect your solution is the same applied by the French to Greenpeace in New Zealand years ago, violate the sovereignty of another nation to gain your ends.

[tomder55]

As I recall you Aussies place them in "detention camps". Now I hear these camps will be in Indonesia and called "immigration centres".

[paraclete]

as I recall you Aussies place them in "detention camps". Now I hear these camps will be in Indonesia and called "immigration centres".

Yes, Tom, we have detention centres, they are not camps but purpose built facilities similar to prisons. They are isolated from the general population because they have arrived illegally and violated our laws and are therefore criminals. However we process their claims and may even resettle some. My understanding is the Indonesians have similar facilities although we cannot vouch for how humanely they are run. Australia assists Indonesia in dealing with these people. Like the US, our country is a magnet for the people of Asia who want a better life in a western society and we take many migrants each year. These people are queue jumpers and may even be criminals or terrorists fleeing justice in their own country.

Our borders are not pourous like those of the US. People who are illegal here are usually those who have overstayed their visa but each year we have a few thousand who like the idea of a sea voyage in a leaking boat. These people are a "bloody nuiance" keeping our sea patrols busy rescuing them and ferrying them about the Indian Ocean. They are most likely people who could not obtain a visa under ordinary circumstances or who don't qualify under the immigration programmes

[ETWolverine]

Not very practical Elliot since one of the ships belongs to us anyway, It was a rescue vessel. This jackboots and all solution of yours would no doubt extend to throwing people off the ship into the sea. What should we do with the people Elliot? I would have thought a person with your background would have been a little more sympathetic to the plight of displaced persons but you are just pathetic.

It doesn't have to be done out at sea... Bring the boat to harbor, place it next to a dock, and then tell the passengers to exit or you'll sink the boat. They'll either get off, or they won't. If they do, no problem, they climb the ladder and get onto a dock. If they don't they're going for a swim. I don't see the issue.

If I hear you right your solution to illegal immigrants arriving by boat is to sink their boats with them on it.

Only if they refuse to disembark when ordered to do so or otherwise fail to follow instructions. If they are following your instructions, leave them alone.

How far from shore should these boats be before we sink them? Should we rescue the people after we have sunk their boats.

I don't know... how far away from shore are they when you order them off the boats? Remember, your complaint was that they are "refusing to leave these boats unless they are allowed to proceed to their destination". Have you been ordering them off the boat far offshore and without another vessel to take charge of them? Or are there other boats there, or a dock, for them to go to?

All I am suggesting is a way to motivate these people to act as you wanted them to act in the first place. If what you wanted them to do is reasonable (like getting of their boat and onto yours, or getting of their boat and getting onto a dock), then all I'm suggesting is giving them a motivation to leave their boats as you wanted them to in the first place.

For your information we do sink their boats after they have been taken off them but as these two situations are occurring in Indonesia, a place where we should avoid committing an act of war or piracy if only to maintain good international relations.

Yeah... how's that working for you? How's your relationship with Indonesia going?

I expect your solution is the same applied by the French to Greenpeace in New Zealand years ago, violate the sovereignty of another nation to gain your ends.

If you say so. I don't know what the French did with Greenpeace, but I suspect that they were too soft on them. There is very little that you could do to make Greenpeace suffer that I wouldn't approve of.

And what were French vessels doing in New Zealand waters? I don't know the situation, so I can't comment on any similarity between my solution and the French's solution.

If this is happening in Indonesian waters, why are you picking the refugees up in the first place. If it is happening in Australian waters, it is none of Indonesia's business what you do with the refugees.

Before you discount my idea, think about it. Stop having knee-jerk reactions and think it through. You have a problem with motivation. I have given you a solution. It is an eminently workable solution if you wish to use it. It is actually NOT the barbaric act that you make it out to be. It is actually quite logical. But if you think that there's a better solution, feel free to use it.

Elliot

[paraclete]

Before you discount my idea, think about it. Stop having knee-jerk reactions and think it through. You have a problem with motivation. I have given you a solution. It is an eminently workable solution if you wish to use it. It is actually NOT the barbaric act that you make it out to be. It is actually quite logical. But if you think that there's a better solution, feel free to use it.

Elliot

Let me enlighten you Elliot, we have reasonably good relationships with the Indonesians, about as good I would say as you have with the Mexicans.

In the one instance the Indonesians intercepted a ship filled with asylum seekers with a stated destination of Australia. They brought the ship to port, ordered the people off and thus far they have refused to budge. In the second instance we obligingly rescued people from a sinking boat in Indonesian waters (Law of the Sea demands we respond to a distress call if we can) These people were taken to an Indonesian port and refuse to leave the ship unless we facilitiate them completing their journey. Sinking the ship is not a practical solution and would no doubt bring international condemnation and I expect the wimps in the US like you to be at the head of the queue. Now these people are Tamils, Indians in other words, and very unreasonable people, just no logic at all. Thieir own government says they should not be allowed to use emotional blackmail tactics without offering any solution themselves

Why are we involved? Because we are trying to stem the flow of illegal immigrants from Asia and we see a solution in the cooperation of other nations in not allowing these people to transit their territory. We are not a heartless people, if we were we would let them all drown and write their deaths off to foolishness. We cannot just allow these people to land on our coast. We want the health of arrivals checked out and besides it is inhospitable peopled only by aboriginals, who display no liking for interlopers. There are international treaties which define our obligations

As far as the French and greenpeace are concerned, in the days of nuclear testing in the Pacific the french attacked and sunk a greenpeace vessel in Auckland harbour

[tomder55]

Clete get with the program ! Open the borders. Let them pick lettuce and mow your lawns... add them to the nanny state safety net. Who cares if there's not enough money... print some !
Besides... unless the Aussies are making enough babies then how are you possibly going to fund that intergenerational theft to provide for your retirement ?

Borders are such 20th century thinking.

[excon]

Hello clete:

Apparently, the Wolverine doesn't remember the ship Exodus 1947. I wonder if he thinks THAT ship should have been sunk. Yes, it was full of Jews. Silly righty's.

It became a symbol of Aliya Bet — illegal immigration. After World War II, illegal immigration increased and the British authorities decided to stop it by sending the ships back to the ports of embarkation in Europe. The first ship to which this policy was applied was the Exodus 1947.

The ship sailed from the port of Site, near Marseilles, on July 11, 1947, with 4,515 immigrants, including 655 children, on board. As soon as it left the territorial waters of France, British destroyers accompanied it. On July 18, near the coast of Palestine but outside territorial waters, the British rammed the ship and boarded it, while the immigrants put up a desperate defense. Two immigrants and a crewman were killed in the battle, and 30 were wounded. The ship was towed to Haifa, where the immigrants were forced onto deportation ships bound for France. At Port-de-Bouc, in southern France, the would-be immigrants remained in the ships' holds for 24 days during a heat wave, refusing to disembark despite the shortage of food, the crowding and the abominable sanitary conditions. The French government refused to force them off the boat. Eventually, the British decided to return the would-be immigrants to Germany, and on August 22 the ship left for the port of Hamburg, then in the British occupation zone. The immigrants were forcibly taken off and transported to two camps near Lubeck.

Journalists who covered the dramatic struggle described to the entire world the heartlessness and cruelty of the British. World public opinion was outraged and the British changed their policy. Illegal immigrants were not sent back to Europe; they were instead transported to detention camps in Cyprus.

The majority of the passengers on the Exodus 1947 settled in Israel, though some had to wait until after the establishment of the State of Israel.

excon

[s_cianci]

I guess if Australia wants to feed and accommodate these people then it's their prerogative to do so. Foolish of them to do so in my opinion but their prerogative nevertheless. I'd like to know how those Australians would be treated if the situation were reversed.

[s_cianci]

We are not a heartless people, if we were we would let them all drown and write their deaths off to foolishness. We cannot just allow these people to land on our coast.

Well, if you cannot "just allow these people to land on your coast", then maybe you need to be a little more "heartless."

[Synnen]

/shrug

I'm one that's big on the punishment of illegal immigrants. If the very first thing you do in a new country is break the law--why should I trust you won't break more?

Screw getting them a Visa.

Put them in bright orange jumpsuits, give them enough food and shelter to be humane, and have them work at thankless jobs for the government as their "punishment" for the rest of their lives.

Oh, and mandatory birth control.

They'll stop coming if they realize they can't EVER get ahead and save money and live freely--and neither will their children, because they won't HAVE children.

And even if they DON'T stop coming... well, if they figure food and shelter and essentially a slave status is better than where they were--good for them!

[ETWolverine]

Hello clete:

Apparently, the Wolverine doesn't remember the ship Exodus 1947. I wonder if he thinks THAT ship should have been sunk. Yes, it was full of Jews. Silly righty's.

Excon, did you read what I actually wrote or just what you THOUGHT I wrote? Did you note the part about taking the passengers off the boat? And if they don't want to leave the boat, you hole the hull and FORCE them to leave the ship?

What the Brits did was bludgeon their way aboard, killing three and injuring dozens of others. And they did so in international waters where they had no jurisdiction.

Do you really not see a difference between the two? One action injures or kills the passengers. The other just forces them off the ship and onto another ship or onto shore.

I'm not addressing what to do with the refugees after you get them off their boats... that's a political decision to be made by the governments in question. But Clete's question was about... and I quote... how to deal with refugees "refusing to leave these boats unless they are allowed to proceed to their destination". I gave a very viable, non-injurious solution to that problem. One that is very different from the one used by the Brits against the Exodus.

Elliot

[paraclete]

I guess if Australia wants to feed and accommodate these people then it's their prerogative to do so. Foolish of them to do so in my opinion but their prerogative nevertheless. I'd like to know how those Australians would be treated if the situation were reversed.

I think we are well aware how we would be treated if the situation were reversed, however we cannot allow that to guide our decision making. The position is complicated and the reality is you are condemned no matter what you do

[inthebox]

various countries behave differently.

What I place before you is a non american issue and yet I think you might have many parallels.

For the past few weeks there have been people who have been variously described as refugees, asylum seekers, economic migrants, even terrorists occupying boats in Indonesia and refusing to leave these boats unless they are allowed to proceed to their destination, Australia.

78 of these persons were rescued in Indonesian waters and yet they refuse to leave their rescue vessel. Such people obviously have no respect for the laws of any country or international law.


How would you remove them from the vessels and would you deport them immediately to their homeland. In an effort to be humane Australia has been feeding these people and has even arranged accomodation for them. I know what my preferences would be but have you advice to offer

Are people that have no respect for laws ideal future citizens? I say not. I would leave them out in international waters to be responsible for themselves. Or tow them out there. When they can follow your laws regarding immigration then they can go through the standard process.



G&P

[paraclete]

Are people that have no respect for laws ideal future citizens? I say not. I would leave them out in international waters to be responsible for themselves. Or tow them out there. When they can follow your laws regarding immigration then they can go through the standard process.

G&P

We would love it to be as simple as that, however the early settlers to this country were not ideal law abiding citizens either, so we can't really get holier than thou on this. You surely would not tow a boat load of people out to sea and leave them there. While this may be an ideal solution it is not a humane one

We must respect international law and so we can't put these people in harms way or unreasonably leave them in harms way when they ask for help. It appears some if not all are refugees registered with the UN, they are queue jumpers certainly, but perhaps have been in Indonesia too long. In this I speak of the 78. The other 300 are recent arrivals to Indonesia intercepted by the Indonesians but these people all appear to have the same mindset, their circumstance is someoneelse's problem

[phlanx]

How do you get them off the boats?

That's easy. Sink them. I guarantee you there will be nobody left on the boat when you're done.

Is it nice? No. Is it PC? Nope. Is it the way we would like to handle the situation? Not really.

But the fact is that some people take good intentions and efforts at being compassionate as a sign of weakness. They believe that they can steamroll over the persons with good intentions if they are stubborn enough. The solution is to draw a line past which you will not allow such people to cross... AND ENFORCE THAT LINE.

In this case, if the "refugees" are asking for your help and assistance and good graces but are refusing to abide by your rules and regulations, then it is time to stop extending your good graces.

Now... it is possible, in fact it is highly likely, that these refugees are indeed legitimate refugees, and that they have reasons to run from their homelands. If so, it is incumbent on them to abide by YOUR rules for how they get to your country and prove their refugee status, not make unreasonable demands and hold their breaths like little children until they get what they want. "I'm not getting off the boat till you take me where I want to go," just doesn't wash with me.

The solution: sink the boat. Then they'll get off. Or drown. Either way, you don't have to worry abut how to get them off the boat thereafter.

What to do about them in terms of national policy? That's a much harder question, and one that each country has to decide for itself.

Elliot

Always laughable when you see people describing the very actions that made such people as Martin Luther king and Gandhi great - are the refugees doing anything different?

As with most western countries immigration is a problem for all

However, isn't this a direct result of the imbalance humans have around the world?

Anybody who is willing to risk their lives in the pursuit of a different life needs assistance

The problem is nobody has come up with a way that would truly help them, every country accepts a limited amount of immigration on top of the usual illegal ones, and every country tries to keep a cap on the numbers as it all comes down to economics

I think in this situation in Australia is no different in any country, they will need to be moved on at some point, and probably using a little force to achieve, but it will happen again and again until the world is a little less imbalanced

[Synnen]

The difference between Martin Luther and Gandhi and illegal immigrants making a stand is this:

Martin Luther and Gandhi did what they did to change their OWN countries, their OWN areas, to make things better for ALL.

Illegal immigrants go someplace where it's easier to make their OWN lives better--but do nothing to fix the problems that made them leave their own countries to begin with.

I have no problem with people making a stand to FIX things other than ONLY their own lives. If those refugees were making a stand on not leaving until someone fixes the problems they're fleeing--that would be ENTIRELY different than them making a stand and saying I'm not moving until you give ME what *I* want, and to hell with what the law says.

[inthebox]

Clete, are these folks not responsible for the choices they make? The choice to NOT follow another countries rules? Australia did not put them in the predicament they are in. Why are Australian citizens held to your rules but non citizen immigrants are not?

GP

[paraclete]

Illegal immigrants go someplace where it's easier to make their OWN lives better--but do nothing to fix the problems that made them leave their own countries to begin with.

What is also missed here is that illegal immigrants offer the country they want to go to nothing. When they get where they are going they contribute to a social problem, often overcrowded housing and poverty. This is the worst kind of beggar your neighbour policy, the idea that someoneelse should assume their problem